Morphogen-based simulation model of ray growth and joint patterning during fin development and regeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fact that some organisms are able to regenerate organs of the correct shape and size following amputation is particularly fascinating, but the mechanism by which this occurs remains poorly understood. The zebrafish (Danio rerio) caudal fin has emerged as a model system for the study of bone development and regeneration. The fin comprises 16 to 18 bony rays, each containing multiple joints along its proximodistal axis that give rise to segments. Experimental observations on fin ray growth, regeneration and joint formation have been described, but no unified theory has yet been put forward to explain how growth and joint patterns are controlled. We present a model for the control of fin ray growth during development and regeneration, integrated with a model for joint pattern formation, which is in agreement with published, as well as new, experimental data. We propose that fin ray growth and joint patterning are coordinated through the interaction of three morphogens. When the model is extended to incorporate multiple rays across the fin, it also accounts for how the caudal fin acquires its shape during development, and regains its correct size and shape following amputation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".